BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Adam B. Schiff, Chairman
1999-2000 Regular Session
SB 600 S
Senator Costa B
As Amended April 5, 1999
Hearing Date: May 18, 1999 6
Government Code 0
DLM:jt 0
SUBJECT
Trial Court Funding
DESCRIPTION
This bill would make two non-substantive changes to the
trial court funding of court operations. Specifically,
this bill would:
Clarify the intention of the Legislature to provide for
continuing responsibility for funding court operations.
Correct a mistake in the existing provision allowing
trial courts to continue to receive specific services
from cities and counties through contract, by changing a
cross-reference from the section which allows (and
provides a mechanism for how) a court may cancel the
services, to the section which allows the county to
cancel services.
BACKGROUND
The Legislature has expressed its intentions to take over
responsibility for trial court funding from the counties.
AB 233, (Escutia) Ch. 850, Stats. of 1997 enacted the Trial
Court Funding and Improvement Act of 1997 which provides
for the state to assume responsibility for funding trial
court operations. Most recently AB 1590 (Assembly Budget
Committee), Ch. 406, Stats. of 1998 increased state support
for trial courts and made technical adjustments to county
support levels.
(more)
SB 600 (Costa)
Page 2
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law declares that commencing on July 1, 1997,
no county shall be
responsible for funding court operations?.
This bill would provide commencing on July 1, 1997, and
each year thereafter, no county shall be responsible for
funding court operations?
2. Existing law states at Government Code 77212 (d) (1)
that if a trial court desires to receive or continue to
receive a specific service from a county or city and
county as provided in subdivision (c), and the county or
city and county desires to provide or continue to provide
that service as provided in subdivision (c), the
presiding judge of that court and the county or city and
county shall enter into a contract for that service.
This bill would provide that if a trial court desires to
receive or continue to receive a specific service from a
county or city and county as provided in subdivision (c),
and the county or city and county desires to provide or
continue to provide that service as provided in
subdivision (b), the presiding judge of that court and
the county or city and county shall enter into a contract
for that service.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for bill
According to the author, "This is a continuation of the
Legislature's commitment to provide funding for trial
courts. These changes are necessary to clarify the roles
that the state and counties play in this complex issue."
The California State Association of Counties are the
sponsors of this measure. They state that the bill will,
"provide necessary clean-up to provisions of the
comprehensive trial court funding legislation of last
session."
2. Trial court funding costs to the state
SB 600 (Costa)
Page 3
While this bill arguably does not create any new
obligations for the state in the area of trial court
funding, it does reaffirm our continuing obligations. In
this light, it might be appropriate to re-evaluate the
premise upon which the state accepted responsibility-that
the state's assumption of responsibility for funding from
the counties would be a revenue neutral switch; the state
would get the court fees then paid to the counties, and
would assume the costs of funding the courts. To make
the switch revenue neutral, the implementing legislation
raised certain court fees. However, the switch has not
been revenue neutral. Each year the Judicial Council has
requested "deficiency funding" to supplant the court's
budget. For instance in fiscal year 1998-99 the state
paid $51.2 million dollars for court funding shortfalls.
In fiscal year 1999-2000, the court is requesting $41
million dollars, in addition to the state's other
accepted responsibilities for funding trial court
operations and staffing. While the Legislature may agree
that such requests are legitimate and necessary, the
Legislature should know that trial court funding is not a
revenue neutral proposition, and may wish to ask what the
true continuing costs of trial court funding will be.
3. Contracting for specific services
The Government Code allows for counties and cities to
continue providing their services to the courts when both
parties agree, through contact. Section 77212 (d) (1)
states that if a trial court desires to receive or
continue to receive a specific service from a county or
city and county as provided in subdivision (c), and the
county or city and county desires to provide or continue
to provide that service as provided in subdivision (c),
the presiding judge of that court and the county or city
and county shall enter into a contract for that service.
If the county wishes to exit a contractual agreement for
services, 77212 subsection (b) provides that the county
may give notice to the court that the county will no
longer provide a specific service except that the county
shall cooperate with the court to ensure that a vital
service for the court shall be available from the county
or other entities that provide such services. The notice
SB 600 (Costa)
Page 4
must be given at least 90 days prior to the end of the
fiscal year and shall be effective only upon the first
day of the succeeding fiscal year.
If the court wishes to exit a contractual agreement for
services, 77212 subsection (c) provides that the court
may give notice to the county that the court will no
longer use a specific county service. The notice shall
be given at least 90 days prior to the end of the fiscal
year and shall be effective only upon the first day of
the succeeding fiscal year. However, for three years from
the effective date of this section, a court shall not
terminate a service that involved the acquisition of
equipment, including, but not limited to, computer and
data-processing systems, financed by a long-term
financing plan whereby the county is dependent upon the
court's continued financial support for a portion of the
cost of the acquisition.
This bill would change the cross-reference contained in
subsection (d) (1). This will allow agreements to go
forward when the court has requested that the county or
city continue to provide a service, and the county or
city does not wish to terminate the relationship as
allowed under subsection (b).
The existing cross-reference would allow the court to
terminate the relationship as allowed under subsection
(c) when it is the party requesting that the county or
city continue to provide a service, effectively locking
the cities and counties into the agreements with no way
out.
4. Prior related legislation
AB 1590 (Assembly Budget Committee) provides county trial
court funding relief by increasing state support for
trial courts and making technical adjustments to county
support levels and increases county grant levels for the
Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program.
Specifically, AB 1590 will:
a) Delay technical adjustments of county remittance
levels to the state for maintenance of efforts (MOE)
SB 600 (Costa)
Page 5
for trial courts from 1997-98 to 1998-99.
b) Provide recoupment for counties over a five-year
period beginning in 1999-00 of funds lost due to the
delay of the MOE adjustment from 1997-98 to 1998-99.
Full recoupment may occur in 1999-00 if the Department
of Finance (DOF) determines it feasible or counties
demonstrate an extreme financial hardship through an
appeals process with DOF.
c) Reduce the fine and forfeiture amounts required to
be remitted by six counties due to their base year
remittance levels reflecting 13 rather than 12 months.
d) Reduce county remittance levels to the state for MOE
of trial courts beginning in 1999-00 by increasing
the number of "bought-out" counties from 20 to 37
(all counties with populations below 300,000), and
lowers the MOE rate for the remaining counties' MOE
remittance levels by 10 percent.
e) Raise the county grant levels for the CASA program
from $20,000 to $35,000 for counties with populations
under 700,000, and to $50,000 for counties with
populations above 700,000, for the purpose of
maintaining the program that recruits and trains
volunteers who assist children who are subjects in
judicial proceedings.
AB 233 (Escutia) transfers principal funding
responsibility for trial court operations to the state
beginning in the 1997-98 fiscal year (FY) while freezing
county contributions at the FY 1994-95 levels.
Specifically, that bill will:
a) Raise certain civil court fees;
b) Create task forces regarding court facilities and
the status of court employees;
c) Require the Judicial Council (JC) to adopt rules
which establish decentralized trial court management;
d) Provide for a civil delay reduction team; equalizes
SB 600 (Costa)
Page 6
county contributions to trial court funding beginning
the 1998-99 fiscal year to ensure the state pays at
least 58 percent of each county's trial court
operations;
e) Redirect 100 percent of all traffic citations
written within municipal jurisdictions to cities,
effective July 1, 1998;
f) Establish a trial court modernization and efficiency
program for unified courts subject to appropriation by
the Legislature;
g) Provide, beginning the 1998-99 fiscal year, over $10
million to "buy out" the trial court costs of the
state's least populous 20 counties, and an additional
$4.3 million to five "donor" counties;
h) Provide the state will pay for additional growth in
court costs in future fiscal years.
Support: None Known
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: California State Association of Counties
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation: AB 233 (Escutia) Ch. 840, Stats. of
1997
AB 1590 (Assembly Budget Committee) Ch.
406, Stats. of 1998
**************